Wilson again. Canon press, busy promoting Stephen Wolfe’s book, “The Case for Christian Nationalism.” Wilson is lamenting what he describes as unjust criticism and persecution aka, “a sort of proxy war and daisy chain extortion.”
Here’s the deal without all the fancy frosting and oddly placed daisy chains. Wolfe seems to imply that black folks are somehow less intelligent, interracial marriage messes with ethno-harmony, and women shouldn’t vote.
Of course that’s not really what he means, we wish to smooth over those concepts, make them all pretty, and present the exact same pile of poo, just now with sprinkles and frosting on it so it all tastes better.
That’s all a big “nope” from me. If I were to draw a caricature of what a, “scary Christian nationalist” might look like, there it is. Nope, not happening. I do not approve. I do not consent to this “weirdness.”
Wilson is quite charitable and gracious to compare his support of this book to his support of, “Augustine, despite his weirdness about women.”
So just more “weirdness?” That is called denial, dismissing, dehumanizing, and gas lighting. Like a thousand angry voices try to point out something that is serious, hurtful, and wrong and Wilson attempts to just reduce and dismiss it all as a bit of lovable weirdness? No, “weirdness” is when you put ketchup on your eggs, not when you run around carrying on about the horrors of interracial marriage and the alleged “gynocratic Global American Empire.”
Wilson says, “The Case for Christian Nationalism is generating this kind of resistance because it was timely, and it touches raw nerves.” Actually, no. It is generating resistance because it is reminding us all why theocracy is a really bad idea and why our founders worked so hard on separation of church and state. It is also making some people simply leap across the political divide, switch parties, and sometimes to just flee the entire church in horror.
This is not “weird,” this is vile.
See, there's this thing called biology... 
As a Christian in an interracial marriage, this sickens me and makes me remember times when the in the church and the secular communities showed to me the very real face of the demonic. Thank you for exposing those who would rationalize this evil.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’ve never understood this hostility on the Right towards interracial marriages. They think that an ethno-state is somehow superior: by their logic Saudi Arabia, Cambodia, and North Korea should be world superpowers and setting the standards of high culture. They even had (Deep-State sponsored) ethnic cleansings in Laos and Rwanda a few years ago; ethnic purity hasn’t seemed to have helped either of those countries too much.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Isn’t it normal human behavior for some to cling to newly obsolete beliefs? And isn’t such slowing necessary?Useful, even?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interracial marriages were not uncommon even during ancient times. But given it seems “newly obsolete” in more modern times, I’m curious to know why you would feel the “slowing” to be “necessary” and “useful, even”?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Has not interracial marriage shared varying numbers of proponents, opponents and uncaring over time? And is not our innate fear of theOTHER not a continuing political tool? Blanket, imposed “solutions” seem more destructive than letting time, communication and travel take their course.
LikeLike
Not sure we’re on the same page here. The issue is not imposing beliefs but rather the vilification of marriage beyond ethnic boundaries especially by so-called Christian leaders. Should not these false shepherds be denounced?
LikeLike
Denounce destructive ideas? With enthusiasm! Together with politicians who resurrect them for reuse.
LikeLike
After the Putsch of 2020 that installed the Neo-Liberal Junta into power, I was hoping that there would be some counter-culture movement based on Trump’s record. At this point, the Right is actually starting to look like a worse alternative. It seems like they’ve done what the Democrats did. The Democrats pander to the worst elements in the Whacko Left Wing while running things on behalf of ‘woke’ Corporations. The Republicans seem to be courting the most vile elements of the Alt-Right while keeping the Neocon Establishment with their ‘Privatized’ version of Corporate Socialism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, very true! Ironically many of these same conservative, far right, religious leaders were once strongly opposed to Trump. Wilson for example, refused to vote for him. Trump is not a member of their tribe, they find him distasteful. These are not really Trump supporters, they are people who talk out of both sides of their neck. I even place responsibility, blame on them for much of the bad press and false rumors that do go around about Trump. These are fringe yahoos, extremists who just seem to always conveniently show up to dinner uninvited, like Nick Fuentes. Then Trump takes the heat for all their ideology.
LikeLike
I’m not sure that theocracy is any worse than our secular humanist government. We could get rid of voting altogether, and then there would be no problem with universal suffrage. I’m not sure what interracial marriage has to do with the theocracy, though. Once you have that many people groups living together in a nation, they are going to intermarry. It’s unavoidable. I suppose this will bring foreign gods into the theocracy; the neo wiccan Europeans might taint the Christian Africans, for example. But that ship already sailed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure that theocracy is any worse than our secular humanist government.
Cool… so just the Catholics, and only Catholics, get to make the laws.
LikeLike
I’m not sure it would be a Catholic theocracy in this nation. Maybe a progressive Bahai Christianity?
LikeLike
Stephen Wolfe’s kinism is a problem
LikeLiked by 1 person
because it is reminding us all why theocracy is a really bad idea and why our founders worked so hard on separation of church and state
Hat tip.
Curious, though – does this idea extend to your Supreme Court?
LikeLike
You don’t think we should have Christians on the SC, right? It should be populated entirely by atheists and secularists?
The thing is, the SC is only supposed to rule on how well the law has reflected the US Constitution. Their own ideology, belief systems, faith is not supposed to influence what is more concrete and evident, which would be, “is it Constitutional or not?”
Also the SC is only supposed to be one third of the balance of power. In recent history we have had a lot of “legislating from the bench.” Legislating is actually the job of congress, not the SC. Congresscritters are elected, whereas the SC is appointed. The system was designed so that we could vote our lawmakers out. The SC was never intended to write the laws.
You can totally blame that problem on the right side of the aisle that really has tried to promote the notion of, “legislating from the bench.” Abortion is a really good example, it was legislated from the bench by a mostly Republican administration, and recently revoked by a mostly conservative SC. People can holler about it from both sides of the debate all they want, but the fact remains that congress neglected the issue for some 50 years.
LikeLike
I would hazard to say it shouldn’t make a difference if you have Muslims or Zoroastrians on the bench.
Personal beliefs are personal beliefs.
Facts, though, are facts. The job is to be moved only by the facts.
Now, you didn’t answer the question: do you support a court stacked with radical religious zealots?
LikeLike
If it makes no difference if you have Muslims or Zoroastrians on the bench, then why in the world are you concerned about a court stacked with, “radical religious zealots?”
Are you suggesting that only Christians can be moved by personal beliefs?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okay, I can see that you’re desperately trying to avoid addressing the fact that they ruled against established precedent after saying (lying for religious purposes) in their hearings that they would not.
So, seems your words above aren’t exactly solid. Pity. I actually thought for a moment there that you were thinking rationally.
LikeLike
They ruled against precedence in what case, Zande? Are we still talking about abortion? The thing is, I’ve listened for decades as people have tried to get Congress to codify it into federal law and even amend the Constitution. The left has known it was unconstitutional and built on flimsy law, hence the 40 yr effort made to try to get Congress to act. As I’ve tried to point out, the SC doesn’t write laws, Congress does.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So only radical religious zealots oppose abortion? Who’s talking like the fanatic here? lol
Some oppose abortion because it’s infanticide. Some oppose it because (in spite of claims that it’s safe) women frequently are physically and/or psychologically crippled. Some oppose it because they see it as a form of population control/eugenics.
A lot of people wish to sweep under the rug the fact that Roe v. Wade was basically a case about Medical Privacy rights. The Brennan Center states:
“In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decided that the right to privacy implied in the 14th Amendment protected abortion as a fundamental right. However, the government retained the power to regulate or restrict abortion access depending on the stage of pregnancy. And after fetal viability, outright bans on abortion were permitted if they contained exceptions to preserve life and health.”
LikeLiked by 1 person